Pretrial services programs

Last updated

Pretrial services programs are procedures in the United States to prepare cases for trial in court. In most jurisdictions pretrial services programs operate at the county level. Six US states (Kentucky, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey, and Colorado) operate and fund pretrial services programs at the state level. The US federal courts system operates pretrial services in all 94 federal districts.

Contents

The process has three primary functions: to collect and analyze defendant information for use in determining risk, to make recommendations to the court concerning conditions of release, and to supervise defendants who are released from secure custody during the pretrial phase.

In 2009, the Pretrial Justice Institute conducted a survey of state and local pretrial services programs in the United States. Of the 300 jurisdictions asked to participate, 171 responded. The survey found that 35 percent of pretrial services programs are administratively located in probation departments, 23% in courts, and 16% in jails. An additional 14% are independent government agencies, and 8% are private nonprofit agencies. [1]

The survey also found that 15% of programs had been established between 2000 and 2009, with 61% of the programs serving a population of 100,000 or less and an additional 26% serving populations of between 100,001 and 500,000. Currently, 97% of jurisdictions provide some form of supervision of defendants, and only about a quarter of programs recommend the use of financial release conditions. [1]

History

Manhattan Bail Project

The first U.S. pretrial services program was the Manhattan Bail Project. Established in 1961, the program was designed to help defendants who were unable to post the financial surety bond conditions set in New York City. The program interviewed defendants to gather information on community ties to determine a defendant's likelihood of appearing in court. Based on these interviews, low risk individuals were recommended for release on their own recognizance, or the defendants' promise to appear without financial obligation. An evaluation of the project found that defendants who did not have to post bond were just as likely to return to court as those who did post surety bond. [2] The Manhattan Bail Project was an initiative of the Vera Institute of Justice. [3]

With the success of the Manhattan Bail Project, several other jurisdictions across the country began to implement pretrial services programs. These early pretrial services programs were primarily for low-risk indigent defendants, unable to pay a financial bond. [4]

Bail Reform Acts of 1966 & 1984

The role of pretrial services programs changed after the passage of the Bail Reform Act of 1966, which required judges to consider several factors in determining individualized pretrial release. Rather than targeting only those defendants who could not afford to pay a financial bond, pretrial services programs were now responsible for providing information on all defendants to aid the judge in his or her release decision. The new law also created a presumption of release on the least restrictive conditions to ensure appearance in court. This led to pretrial services programs supervising defendants to ensure compliance with various condition of release. While most states followed the federal model and updated their bail laws to include a list of factors that the court had to consider in making a pretrial release decision and a range of non-financial pretrial release options, most jurisdictions at the time lacked a pretrial services program to provide the required information and supervision to the courts. [5]

In 1984 Congress passed the Bail Reform Act of 1984 as part of the Omnibus Crime Control Act. The key change in bail law from this act was the inclusion of public safety as a factor in determining bail. Three years later, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the legislation in the case of United States v. Salerno . The majority of states since Salerno have adopted similar legislation, further extending the need and responsibility of pretrial services programs to not only assess risk, but to provide supervision to those released pretrial.

National organizations and standards

The American Bar Association first developed standards on pretrial release as part of their Criminal Justice Standards in 1964. [6] In 1972, the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies, a membership organization of pretrial services practitioners and others interested in pretrial justice reform, was established in San Francisco. Five years later NAPSA published its first standards of pretrial release. The standards, based on the ABA standards, outlined the ideal function of a pretrial services program. These standards have been periodically updated, with the most recent standards being published in 2004 by NAPSA [7] and 2009 by the ABA. [8]

In 1977, the Pretrial Services Resource Center was established to provide training and technical assistance to pretrial services agencies. The Articles of Incorporation stated that the resource center was founded "…to promote research and development, exchange of ideas and issues, and professional competence in the field of pretrial services…" In 2007, the organization changed its name to the Pretrial Justice Institute. [9]

Core functions

The standards established by the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies and the American Bar Association contains seven core functions of a pretrial services program.

Function 1 – Universal screening

Pretrial services programs are expected to provide universal and impartial screening of all defendants arrested on criminal charges prior to their first appearance in court. The interview is intended solely to assist in determining appropriate pretrial release. The interview should consist of demographic factors, residence information, employment/educational status, substance abuse and/or mental health history, and other factors that could help in determining release.

Function 2 – Information Verification

After the initial interview, a pretrial services officer verifies the information collected in the interview. The verification process is done by contacting references provided by the defendant. In addition to verifying information from the interview, criminal history checks are done. Checking local, state, and national databases can also identify outstanding warrants, probation or parole status, or pretrial release.

Function 3 – Risk assessment

The risk assessment is to determine the risk a defendant has of failing to appear in court or of committing a new crime while awaiting adjudication. The standards state that risk assessments should be empirically derived to predict pretrial failure. Pretrial services programs validate these risk assessment tools through an intense validation process. (VanNostrand 2003; Latessa, Smith, Lemke, Makarios, & Lowenkamp 2009; VanNostrand & Rose 2009; VanNostrand & Keebler 2009; Austin, Ocker & Bhati 2010). Risk assessments produce a probability of an individual with a set of characteristics failing to appear in court or being a danger to the community. Some pretrial algorithmic risk assessments have been argued to have potential racial bias issues. [10]

Function 4 – Report to judicial officer

Functions 1 through 3 should be completed prior to the defendant's first appearance in court so the information collected can be presented to the judicial officer to aid in the release decision. The pretrial services program provides recommended bond conditions and possible diversion eligibility to manage risk upon release. Pretrial services programs vary in how they provide this report, some send a written report and others staff pretrial services officers in court.

Function 5 – Detention review

An important function of a pretrial services program is to follow up with those who were not released. Oftentimes defendants remain in jail because they are unable to pay the bail set by the court, or pretrial services officers were unable to verify the defendants' information. By reviewing cases pretrial services programs can alert the courts of new information and make revised recommendations.

Function 6 – Supervision

An important aspect of a pretrial services program is to provide supervision to those who have been released. Judicial officers can set a myriad of different conditions tailored to individual defendants. Pretrial services programs ensure that defendants are following those conditions while released. Common conditions could involve one or more of the following: regular check-ins with pretrial services, substance abuse or mental health treatment, stay away orders, or electronic monitoring. Another important part of pretrial supervision is to remind defendants of upcoming court dates. If a defendant is in violation of a release condition it is the responsibility of the pretrial services program to report those violations to the court.

Function 7 – Outcome measures

The collection and reporting of outcomes is key to a quality pretrial services program. Outcome measures that should be collected include: safety rate, concurrence rate, success rate, and pretrial detainee length of stay among others. There are also performance measures such as recommendation rate, response to defendant conduct, intervention rate, and other output measures. These measures should be used to continually improve the pretrial services program. [11]

National call for pretrial programs

In 2011, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder called for the expansion of pretrial services programs across the US. [12] Several national organizations have called for the establishment of pretrial services programs and the work they do including:

Related Research Articles

An arrest warrant is a warrant issued by a judge or magistrate on behalf of the state, which authorizes the arrest and detention of an individual, or the search and seizure of an individual's property.

Bail is a set of pre-trial restrictions that are imposed on a suspect to ensure that they will not hamper the judicial process. Bail is the conditional release of a defendant with the promise to appear in court when required. In some countries, especially the United States, bail usually implies a bail bond, a deposit of money or some form of property to the court by the suspect in return for the release from pre-trial detention. If the suspect does not return to court, the bail is forfeited and the suspect may be charged with the crime of failure to appear. If the suspect returns to make all their required appearances, bail is returned after the trial is concluded.

Probation in criminal law is a period of supervision over an offender, ordered by the court often in lieu of incarceration.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Forensic psychology</span> Using psychological science to help answer legal questions

Forensic psychology is the development and application of scientific knowledge and methods to help answer legal questions arising in criminal, civil, contractual, or other judicial proceedings. Forensic psychology includes both research on various psychology-law topics, such as jury selection, reducing systemic racism in criminal law, and eyewitness testimony, as well as professional practice, such as evaluating individuals to determine competency to stand trial or assessing military veterans for service-connected disability compensation. The field traces its roots to contributions by Wilhem Wundt, Hugo Münsterberg, and Sigmund Freud among others. Contemporary definitions of forensic psychology recognize that several subfields of psychology apply "the scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge of psychology to the law." The American Psychological Association's Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists reference several psychology subdisciplines, such as social, clinical, experimental, counseling, and neuropsychology.

A "failure to appear" (FTA) occurs when a defendant or respondent does not come before a tribunal as directed in a summons. FTAs are also known as "bail jumping." In the United States, FTAs are punishable by fines, incarceration, or both when committed by a criminal defendant. The severity of the punishment depends on the seriousness of the criminal charges that were the subject of the missed proceeding. An FTA may trigger a bench warrant for the defendant's arrest and impair their eligibility for bail and pretrial release in subsequent proceedings.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bail bondsman</span> Agent that secures an individuals release in court

A bail bondsman, bail bond agent or bond dealer is any person, agency or corporation that will act as a surety and pledge money or property as bail for the appearance of a defendant in court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Probation and parole officer</span> Officials who supervise the conduct of offenders on community supervision

A probation and parole officer is an official appointed or sworn to investigate, report on, and supervise the conduct of convicted offenders on probation or those released from incarceration to community supervision such as parole. Most probation and parole officers are employed by the government of the jurisdiction in which they operate, although some are employed by private companies that provide contracted services to the government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New York City Criminal Court</span> Court for misdemeanors, arraignments, and preliminary hearings

The Criminal Court of the City of New York is a court of the State Unified Court System in New York City that handles misdemeanors and lesser offenses, and also conducts arraignments and preliminary hearings in felony cases.

The U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services System, also called the Office of Probation and Pretrial Services, part of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, is the probation office of the federal judiciary of the United States. It serves the United States district courts in all 94 federal judicial districts nationwide and constitutes the community corrections arm of the Federal Judiciary. It administers probation and supervised release under United States federal law enforced by probation officers.

Stuart Jeff Rabner is the chief justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court. He served as New Jersey Attorney General, Chief Counsel to Governor Jon Corzine, and as a federal prosecutor at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey.

Mental health courts link offenders who would ordinarily be prison-bound to long-term community-based treatment. They rely on mental health assessments, individualized treatment plans, and ongoing judicial monitoring to address both the mental health needs of offenders and public safety concerns of communities. Like other problem-solving courts such as drug courts, domestic violence courts, and community courts, mental health courts seek to address the underlying problems that contribute to criminal behavior.

A presentence investigation report (PSIR) is a legal document that presents the findings of an investigation into the "legal and social background" of a person convicted of a crime before sentencing to determine if there are extenuating circumstances which should influence the severity or leniency of a criminal sentence. The PSIR is a "critical" document prepared by a probation officer via a system of point allocation, so that it may serve as a charging document and exhibit for proving criminal conduct. The PSIR system is widely implemented today.

The Vermont Defendant Accommodation Project ("VDAP") was a two-year case study conducted by Philip J. Kinsler, Anna Saxman, and Daniel B. Fishman aimed at identifying, assessing, and accommodating the special needs of mentally retarded criminal defendants.

A diversion program, also known as a pretrial diversion program or pretrial intervention program, in the criminal justice system is a form of pretrial sentencing that helps remedy behavior leading to the arrest. Administered by the judicial or law enforcement systems, they often allow the offender to avoid conviction, and include a rehabilitation program to avoid future criminal acts. Availability and the operation of such systems differ in different countries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Remand (detention)</span> Detention after arrest and charge until a trial

Remand, also known as pre-trial detention, preventive detention, or provisional detention, is the process of detaining a person until their trial after they have been arrested and charged with an offence. A person who is on remand is held in a prison or detention centre or held under house arrest. Varying terminology is used, but "remand" is generally used in common law jurisdictions and "preventive detention" elsewhere. However, in the United States, "remand" is rare except in official documents and "kept in custody until trial" is used in the media and even by judges and lawyers in addressing the public. Detention before charge is referred to as custody and continued detention after conviction is referred to as imprisonment.

Bail in the United States refers to the practice of releasing suspects from custody before their hearing, on payment of bail, which is money or pledge of property to the court which may be refunded if suspects return to court for their trial. Bail practices in the United States vary from state to state.

In re Kenneth Humphrey is a case decided by the California Supreme Court that concerns whether it is a violation of due process and equal protection to imprison defendants prior to trial solely because they cannot afford to pay bail.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lifetime probation</span>

Lifetime probation is reserved for relatively serious legal offenders. The ultimate purpose of lifetime probation is to examine whether offenders properly maintain good behavior as well as capability of patience under lifetime probation serving circumstance. An offender is required to abide by particular conditions for rest of their entire life in order to nurture superior social behaviour as a punishment for their criminal offence. Condition of probation orders contain supervision, electronic tagging, reporting to his or her probation or parole officer, as well as attending counselling. The essential component of lifetime probation carries the sense of being examined for well-being character and behaviour for life term period. Legislative framework regarding probation may vary depending on the country or the state within a certain country as well as the duration and condition of probational sentencing.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">SAFE-T Act</span> 2021 Illinois statute

The Safety, Accountability, Fairness and Equity-Today Act, commonly known as the SAFE-T Act, is a state of Illinois statute enacted in 2021 that makes a number of reforms to the criminal justice system, affecting policing, pretrial detention and bail, sentencing, and corrections. The Act's section on pretrial detention, which took effect on January 1, 2023, is also known as the Pretrial Fairness Act.

Issue1, the Determining Bail Amount Based on Public Safety Amendment, was a successful ballot measure on the November 2022 general election ballot in Ohio. It added language to the Constitution of Ohio to require consideration of public safety in the setting of bail amounts, and transferred responsibility for establishing bail procedures from the Ohio Supreme Court to the Ohio Legislature.

References

  1. 1 2 "2009 Survey of Pretrial Services Programs". Pretrial Justice Institute.
  2. ↑ Ares, Charles E.; Rankin, Anne; Sturz, Herbert (1963). "The Manhattan Bail Project: An Interim Report on the Use of Pre-trial Parole". New York University Law Review. 38: 67–95.
  3. ↑ "Manhattan Bail Project: official court transcripts October 1961-June 1962 | Vera Institute of Justice". www.vera.org. Archived from the original on 2013-09-21.
  4. ↑ Freed, D. J.; Wald, P. M. (1964). "Bail in the United States: 1964". U.S. Department of Justice.
  5. ↑ Schnacke, Tim; Jones, M; Brooker, C. "The History of Bail and Pretrial Release" (PDF). Pretrial Justice Institute.
  6. ↑ Marcus, M. (2009). "The Making of the ABA Criminal Justice Standards" (PDF). Criminal Justice. 23 (4).
  7. ↑ National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (2004). "Standards on Pretrial Release: Third Edition" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 30 October 2013.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  8. 1 2 "Standards Relating to Pretrial Release: Third Edition" (PDF). American Bar Association. 2007.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  9. ↑ "Pretrial Justice Institute History".
  10. ↑ Thomas, C.; Nunez, A. (2022). "Automating Judicial Discretion: How Algorithmic Risk Assessments in Pretrial Adjudications Violate Equal Protection Rights on the Basis of Race". Law & Inequality . 40 (2): 371–407. doi:10.24926/25730037.649.
  11. ↑ Thigpen (2011). "Measuring What Matters: Outcome and Performance Measures for the Pretrial Services Field" (PDF).{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  12. ↑ Bureau of Justice Assistance (2011). "National Symposium on Pretrial justice: Summary Report of Proceedings" (PDF).{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  13. ↑ National Association of Counties (2011). "American county platform: criminal justice system, criminal justice planinning and coordinating" (PDF).{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  14. ↑ International Association of Chiefs of Police (2011). "Pretrial release and pretrial detention process".{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  15. ↑ Association of Prosecuting Attorneys (2011). "Policy statement on pretrial justice" (PDF).{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  16. ↑ American Council of Chief Defenders (2011). "Policy Statement on fair and effective pretrial justice practices".{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  17. ↑ American Jail Association. "American Jail Association resolution on pretrial justice" (PDF).{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  18. ↑ American Probation and Parole Association (2010). "Resolution: pretrial supervision".{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  19. ↑ National Sheriffs' Association. "Resolution in support and recognition of pretrial services agencies" (PDF).{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  20. ↑ Conference of State Court Administrators. "2012-2013 Policy Paper Evidence-Based Pretrial Release" (PDF).{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  21. ↑ Conference of Chief Justices (2013). "Resolution 3: Endorsing the Conference of State Court Administrators Policy Paper on Evidence-Based Pretrial Release" (PDF).{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.